The pressure to enhance research productivity in higher education institutions (HEIs) has led many universities to regulate faculty research activities through various accountability and incentive policies around the globe. Previous studies examining research performance policies (RPPs) documented the various responses of HEIs and faculty as well as faculty’s perceptions toward RPPs. However, previous studies did not attempt to understand the underlying purposes and assumptions behind variation in responses and perceptions. Accordingly, the study sought to understand how faculty and administrators from two disciplinary areas (health and social sciences/education), at a Saudi university, understand, perceive and make sense of the University RPP. Using sensemaking theory, and through interviews and document analysis, the study revealed the divergent beliefs and held perceptions about the RPP, across the institutional actors. On the one hand, college/department administrators perceived the RPP as problematic given the current unsupportive organizational culture and the faculty’s traditional role that is heavily dependent on teaching and services. On the other hand, faculty perceived the RPP as limiting their research autonomy and thus actively resisted it. Policy requirements held different perceived consequences for international faculty and highlighted the distinct power status associated with faculty’s employment status based on their nationality.

提高高等教育机构 (HEI) 研究生产力的压力已导致许多大学通过全球各种问责制和激励政策来规范教师研究活动。以往研究绩效政策 (RPP) 的研究记录了高等教育机构和教职员工的各种反应以及教职员工对 RPP 的看法。然而，之前的研究并没有试图理解反应和感知变化背后的潜在目的和假设。因此，该研究试图了解沙特大学两个学科领域（健康和社会科学/教育）的教职员工和管理人员如何理解、感知和理解大学 RPP。运用意义建构理论，通过访谈和文件分析，该研究揭示了机构参与者对 RPP 的不同信念和看法。一方面，鉴于当前不支持的组织文化和严重依赖教学和服务的教职员工的传统角色，学院/部门管理人员认为 RPP 存在问题。另一方面，教师认为 RPP 限制了他们的研究自主权，因此积极抵制。政策要求对国际教师产生了不同的感知后果，并突出了与基于国籍的教师就业状况相关的不同权力地位。鉴于当前不支持的组织文化以及严重依赖教学和服务的教职员工的传统角色，学院/部门管理人员认为 RPP 存在问题。另一方面，教师认为 RPP 限制了他们的研究自主权，因此积极抵制。政策要求对国际教师产生了不同的感知后果，并突出了与基于国籍的教师就业状况相关的不同权力地位。鉴于当前不支持的组织文化以及严重依赖教学和服务的教职员工的传统角色，学院/部门管理人员认为 RPP 存在问题。另一方面，教师认为 RPP 限制了他们的研究自主权，因此积极抵制。政策要求对国际教师产生了不同的感知后果，并突出了与基于国籍的教师就业状况相关的不同权力地位。